Gabriel Hardy

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin is 20 years old. He comes from my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix. School was not always easy for him. Although he struggled to finish his studies, he later completed a vocational diploma in sheet metal work. Now he works six days a week. He gets up at 4 a.m. to install ventilation systems in homes in Quebec, homes that he knows very well he will never be able to afford. Benjamin wrote to me with a very simple question: When will the government keep its promises? According to Statistics Canada, the cost of groceries has increased by 29% since 2021. Evidently, Benjamin's wages have not kept pace. There are many people like Benjamin in Montmorency—Charlevoix, people who work full time but who have to put things back on the grocery store shelves every week because they cannot afford them and because they are struggling to make ends meet. Following the last election in 2025, the minority government had to work with the opposition parties. We all had to work together to find solutions to move the country forward. At that time, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which made it possible to build at a pace not seen in generations. The government granted itself exceptional powers to deal with an exceptional situation, meaning the trade war with our neighbours to the south. Canadians were clear. They were asking us to work together in their best interests, to act for the common good and to avoid politicizing the situation. The Conservatives said yes to Bill C-5 out of respect for Canadians. We did it not because we were naive, but because we wanted to be co-operative. For years, we have wanted to get this country building. We kept our word and respected the will of the people. We voted in favour of Bill C-5. Today, I want to ask a question on Benjamin's behalf. What did the Liberals do with that power that was entrusted to them and with the co-operation that we extended to them out of respect for democracy? The answer is that they got a majority without voters returning to the polls, through agreements made behind closed doors. They bought themselves a majority and took control of Parliament. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Since then, there has been no shortage of promises. Allow me to recap the slogans and announcements made since 2017 about the housing crisis. In 2017, there was the Reaching Home program, part of the national housing strategy. The Liberals announced that housing would be built for all Canadians, that more homes would be built more quickly and that housing would be made affordable. There was also Build Canada Homes, which they said would unlock more housing development. These are nothing but slogans. In 2024, they said it was time to build, and they proposed Canada's housing plan. They said they would increase supply, reduce costs and cut red tape. They said that every Canadian deserves a place to call home. Once again, these were just slogans. In 2025, they unveiled “Building Canada Strong”, supposedly the most ambitious plan since the Second World War. A promise is like a cheque. For 11 years, that cheque has always bounced for the same reason: insufficient funds. Since the Liberal government took power, there have been plenty of slogans and promises, but not many shovels in the ground. In the meantime, as I said earlier, grocery costs have risen by 29% since 2021, and the price of gas has increased by 23% or so in a year. One couple from Charlevoix, both 23 years old, wrote to me last week. To save money, they have to shop at three different grocery stores. They skipped taking a vacation because gas costs too much. That is the reality ordinary people are facing. That is the result of the Liberals' decisions. The government says that the situation is urgent and that we need to act fast and pass Bill C-39 as fast as possible. This emergency did not come out of nowhere. It comes after close to 11 years of delaying and failing to get this country building; 11 years without diversifying our markets; 11 years without building the infrastructure that would have put us in a position of strength going into the negotiations with the Americans; 11 years of growing poorer instead of growing. Does anyone find this reminiscent of the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? Well, the government has spent the past 11 years trying to look good to the rest of the world, inviting everyone to come and enjoy our services, and constantly asking Canadians to pay more for less. I want to come back to Bill C-5. It passed 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been designated as a project of national interest under that legislation. Meanwhile, a new Major Projects Office has been established and funded to the tune of $214 million over five years. That office cost $42 million last year alone. When I asked the director of the Major Projects Office how many major projects had been launched for that $42 million, she said none. Worse still, more than six new federal agencies, offices or entities have been created. There is plenty of bureaucracy and administration, but nothing is actually being produced. Today, that same government, which now holds a majority, is presenting a massive 250-page bill. It was introduced on Monday. The government is telling us once again that we need to move quickly, that we need to pick up the pace and move at a speed never seen since the last time we moved at a speed never seen before. Fifteen months later, it is back with the same promise and a catchier title that is a little more grandiose and impressive. It is just more smoke and mirrors. I mentioned Benjamin earlier. Benjamin makes $800 a week. His pay goes toward the car he uses to get to work, groceries, rent, insurance and gas. In his letter to me, he wrote in all caps that every penny counts. When Benjamin asks for a raise, it will not be for little luxuries. It will be for groceries, rent, gas and insurance. Workers who are fighting for higher wages are not enemies of our economy. They are the ones who build it with their own hands at 4 a.m. Members may recall that in the summer of 2025, 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants went on strike. What were they asking for? They were asking to be paid for the hours they work, that is, during boarding, during time spent waiting and during airport delays. These hours were unpaid. Less than 12 hours into this strike, the government invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to send them back to work. All they wanted was to be paid for the hours they work. Part 3 of Bill C‑39 reforms section 107. The government is talking about creating a framework to prevent abuse. Workers are saying that this will make it almost impossible for port, rail and airline workers to invoke their right to strike. Those who have experienced the effects of the law tell us that they see things completely differently from what the government says. Our role here is to understand, analyze and defend the interests of workers and Canadians. The role of the opposition is to be loyal to the people and to the nation. I am not talking about administrative structures and organizations. I am talking about real people. I am talking about people like Benjamin. I am talking about standing up for Canadians who are working but still cannot make ends meet. To be fair, there are some good points in the bill. For example, the “one project, one review, one year” approach is a very good idea. It is so good, in fact, that it was our idea. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk introduced it in the House as Bill C-375. In May 2024, the House rejected it by 177 votes to 150. The Liberals voted against it. The Minister of Finance told us this week that the Conservatives do not have a monopoly on common sense, but it seems we laid claim to most of it before he came around. I do not, however, blame the government for having changed its mind in the end. It is good that the Liberals are discovering that they have their shortcomings, because the ideas we are defending here do not belong to any one party. They belong to all those who want to move the country forward, who want us to prosper as a society and who want to build a better future. After 11 years of big announcements, Benjamin wants more than just good intentions. He wants things to work. He wants to see progress and results that make a difference for him. Another person wrote to me recently to say that Canadians are not asking for promises. They are asking for real, measurable results. This person asked us to spend less time playing politics and more time finding real solutions. I want to suggest two very simple solutions. The first is that we do a real study in committee. I do not want to see the debates cut short or the committee voting to speed up the work because the government has a majority now. We need to listen to what workers, employers, experts and first nations have to say. We need to listen to people in regions like mine and our business owners. We need to hear from those who may be positively or negatively affected by the bill. We cannot analyze 250 pages in just a few days. My second suggestion is that we need to actually stick to the schedule. The government is talking about taking one year to assess a project. There cannot be any hidden delays, any extensions granted behind closed doors or any claims that we need to understand that there is a backlog. That is a promise. If the government is promising that it will take one year, then the process needs to take one year from start to finish. When the government tells us that this is urgent, that we need to trust it and grant it more power because there is a crisis, our duty is not to rush into anything. It is to slow down and read carefully, because every comma, every period and every sentence raises important concerns. It is because every comma affects a worker's wage. Every period affects a construction project in some region. Every sentence represents a promise made to Benjamin. We want to make sure that these promises do not end up as a bounced cheque this time. Benjamin will get up at 4 a.m. tomorrow and head out to build a house he cannot afford. He does not want to hear any more slogans. He wants us to build a country where working hard is still enough. Slogans do not build anything. Construction sites do. It is high time we started building together.

Mr. Speaker, it is always quite something to hear that. First, the opposition is playing its part. We have offered up plenty of solutions here in the House, and the Liberals, unfortunately, are stealing our ideas. However, since they did not come up with these ideas themselves, they do not know how to implement them. They have scrapped the excise tax on gasoline, but temporarily and only partially. What we are calling for is the removal of all federal taxes to give families some real breathing room. More taxes, more red tape, more bureaucracy—that is not the solution. It is high time they realized that the government needs to step aside and let our country grow so that, ultimately, we can all prosper together.

Mr. Speaker, yes, once again, the Liberal government is using fear to govern and grant itself more power. As we said, exceptional circumstances sometimes warrant an exceptional response or exceptional legislation. We passed that legislation in Parliament 15 months ago, but the only results we have seen involve what the Liberals do best, which is creating more bureaucracy, giving more money to their cronies and leaving less money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. We need to continue keeping an eye on them. We need to continue rising here in the House, out of loyalty to the people and to the nation, and we need to ensure that our laws work for people and that the government is not just using this crisis to play politics. Yes, we will be there to double-check every comma and to hold the Liberals to account for their decisions.

Mr. Speaker, things are moving forward at speeds not seen in generations. As I said in my speech, the current pace of things is unprecedented. Nothing is getting built, but money is being spent. The government allocated $42 million to the Major Projects Office, which has been scrutinizing paperwork for a year now without a single project getting off the ground. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying so. It comes from testimony given in committee by the Major Projects Office director, who said that $42 million had been spent without a single project being approved. It would be a good thing if that kind of speed, not seen in generations, could move faster than a Ford Model T and finally move our country forward.

Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer meeting with citizens and talking to families, workers and young people. One thing kept coming up: There is a real disconnect between what the Liberal government is saying and what ordinary Canadians are facing. Samuel, a young father, wrote to me and said, “To be honest, I feel like we're heading in the wrong direction, and most of the people I talk to feel the same way”. What Samuel wants is to save money, and the Conservative plan would enable him to do that. What does the Prime Minister have to say to Samuel and all those who feel as though the Liberals are completely out of touch with their reality and are using the trade crisis for political gain rather than actually doing something to make things better?

Mr. Speaker, here we have another plan that is completely out of touch. The Liberals are always talking about programs they are implementing by sending cheques to Canadians. The problem is that the Liberals have put us in the hole with their years of deficits. The deficit will be $65 billion this year, with a projected deficit of $60 billion per year for another five years. The cheques they mail out just add more money to the debt. We Conservatives want to save Canadians money. Can the Prime Minister explain to us why these cheques to Canadians should be seen as a gift when they actually saddle our young people with debt for generations to come?

Mr. Speaker, Eudore Fortin's story began in Saint‑Urbain in the 1930s. In his teens, Mr. Fortin worked as a lookout atop a fire tower. As a log driver and a lumberman, he came to know our forests and mountains exceptionally well, one step at a time. His greatest ambition was to share these wonderful places with others. In the late 1970s, with vision and determination, he founded the Traversée de Charlevoix trail. He devoted decades to clearing and developing nearly 105 kilometres of trails, giving countless hikers a chance to experience the beauty of our forests. Thanks to him, thousands of people took to the trails. Thanks to him, thousands of people went further than they thought possible. Thanks to him, thousands of people fell in love with Charlevoix. His perseverance is also a great inspiration to the Quebec nation. His work leaves a legacy for the generations that will follow in our footsteps. Mr. Fortin blazed a trail through our mountains and left a lasting mark on our history.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked our young people to make sacrifices while he and his government continue to spend recklessly. The Conservatives have identified $150 billion in potential savings, which amounts to $10,000 per family. How can we do that? We can do it by cutting the $20 billion per year that goes to consultants and scrapping the monster Alto high-speed rail project. It would also help if we could stamp out tax avoidance, a practice the Prime Minister is very good at. When will the Liberals match their rhetoric with results and start saving Quebec and Canadian families money?

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is back to work today and the people watching at home have just one question on their minds. They want to know what we are going to do for them. Last week, Money Mentors reported that nearly one in two workers feel less financially secure than they did a year ago. Roughly the same proportion say they could get by for no more than two months if they lost their job today. These are not just figures on a spreadsheet. We are talking about young people who are just starting out, families who are trying to get established. These are people who work hard, follow the rules and do their part, but who feel as though they are paying more and more and getting less and less in return. Hard work should still be enough to put a roof over our heads and food on the table, to raise a family and build something for our children. Canadians are doing their part. Now, they want results. Our role here, as an opposition party, is to speak on behalf of worried Canadians who want change. The promise of Canada is not broken, but we need to remind this Liberal government about it every week, because it is putting its own interests ahead of Canadians' interests.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said here in the House that the cost of living is the best it has been in a decade, but that has not been Canadians' experience. According to a CBC article, some people have even resorted to starting GoFundMe campaigns to pay for basic necessities. Roughly 15,000 crowdfunding campaigns have been launched to help people pay for their groceries, rent and even some medical emergencies. After 11 years of reckless Liberal spending, Quebeckers now have to resort to asking for charity to survive. Will the Liberals finally admit that they greatly accelerated the current crisis?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals rise here to talk to us about programs when we are asking them to stop doing what is not working and to make decisions so that Canadians can finally make ends meet. Let us look at one of their programs. Their groceries program will pay out $16.50 twice a year to Canadians who earn $53,000, yet the cost of groceries has increased by $1,000 in one year for a family of four. Will the Prime Minister reconnect with ordinary people, review these policies and cancel all their spending over the past year that has plunged Canada into a recession?

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and unpleasant, but we are in a recession, and people are feeling the pinch. Some families have to spend more than 120% of their income just on housing and food. It has reached the point where people are having to borrow money just to put food on the table. The reality is that the Liberals' policies are not working, and the more power the Liberals have, the more it costs Canadians. Now the Prime Minister is about to attend the G7 summit as the only leader to have led his country into recession. Does he plan to continue dodging the issue by making more grand, inspiring speeches abroad while leaving families in Canada to pay the price?

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs. In Quebec, the average salary is $67,000. However, I received a photo of a Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment from a worker who earns exactly $67,000. He received $11.98 to help pay for groceries. Families can no longer afford groceries, rent and gas. The Liberals have plunged the country into a recession. I urge the Prime Minister to use his time at the G7 to heed the advice of all the other countries that are not in a recession. I think that could be beneficial to us.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberals' economic plan. It involves $141 billion in new spending, a $67-billion deficit in just one year and a budget that repeats the word “investment” 786 times but spends like there is no tomorrow. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession because of those decisions. Recently, 6,000 Canadians wrote to me, and their key message was clear: The cost of living is crushing them. After 11 years of Liberal decisions that have held back Canada's development and that tax Canadians, their decisions have led us to a recession and a position of weakness. When will the Liberals admit that they need to urgently change course?

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point the finger at others, but when we see a prime minister spending $159,000 on inflight meals for a single trip, we understand why his decisions have led us straight into a recession. While Quebeckers are counting every penny at the grocery store, the Liberals are spending taxpayers' money as if it were Monopoly money. When will the government show some respect for taxpayers' money and start making decisions that ease their financial burden rather than always raising taxes to fund the Liberal pharaoh's ideological projects?

Mr. Speaker, there have not been any decent answers today, despite the fact that the questions being asked are incredibly simple. Every time the Liberals are in power, tensions rise with Quebec, Alberta and the other provinces. Why? It is quite simple. It is because the Liberals do not respect the Quebec nation. They respect Alberta no more than they respect Quebec. They continue to centralize and overstep provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals believe that Canada is their country and it should be run their way. Can the Liberal government finally mind its own business, respect provincial autonomy and understand that its role is to serve, not to control?

Mr. Speaker, it is 9:45 p.m. in the House right now. Most Canadians are putting their kids to bed, helping them fall asleep, finishing up their day, finishing their evening and getting ready to go to sleep. They are not watching the work of Parliament, and that is exactly what the Liberals want. They are very happy when people are not watching what is happening here, because what the Liberals are doing right now, this evening, is ramming through bills that should be worked on over the course of a year, in collaboration with the opposition parties, in order to finally get everyone's agreement. It is not about getting their bills passed. It is about getting bills passed that all Canadians can relate to. Instead of doing that, they worked very hard to cobble together a majority behind the scenes, only to end up falling behind and trying to save what they can by speeding things up and making MPs sit in Parliament until midnight to try to get their bills passed. If you want a concrete example of what is happening right now and how the government operates, then just look at what is happening at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with Bill C-22. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who is a completely independent individual, an officer of Parliament, whose job is specifically to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, has asked to testify on Bill C-22, a bill that will require electronic service providers to retain everyone's metadata for one year so that the government can access it. We are talking about Internet browsing history, phone numbers, the devices we use, and the people we are with. The commissioner said that this bill falls squarely within her mandate, that she has genuine concerns about Canadians' privacy, and that she wanted to testify. Parliament has a procedure known as “unanimous consent”. Any member can request it. It means that we now all agree to do something. Conservative members have requested unanimous consent to have the Privacy Commissioner of Canada participate in reviewing the bill. The Liberals refused. How strange. So the Conservatives tried a different tack. They moved to suspend a study of this clause in order to study it a short time later so that the commissioner could participate. Once again, the Liberals voted against it. There were two attempts and two refusals. The Liberals are forcing the Privacy Commissioner of Canada into silence to essentially stop her from protecting the rights of Canadians, whom she protects every day. This is not a procedural matter. This is a government that fears transparency. We see that on many issues, and we are seeing it right now with the massive Bill C-16. It contains some good things, and I am going to talk about that, but it also contains a little poison pill that needs to be discussed. It is important to understand that, when we vote on a bill, we are not just voting on a single one of its lines. We are voting on the whole document. As I was saying, there are some good things about this bill. Making sure that the killing of an intimate partner is automatically classified as first-degree murder is a very good thing. Our colleague, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is the one who suggested that. The bill seeks to ban deepfakes of intimate images. Once again, it was a Conservative member who suggested that. These are good things about the bill. However, unfortunately, this bill contains clause 63, and when it comes time to vote, we have to vote on the whole bill, including that provision. What does that provision say? As things now stand in Parliament, elected representatives have said that, if someone commits a serious crime, then they should go to prison for a predetermined minimum number of years with no exceptions. If a person commits a crime, then they know what they are facing. This is called a mandatory minimum sentence. It is the lower limit. It cannot get any lower than that. That is guaranteed. That is a promise that Parliament made to victims, that their perpetrators will have to face real consequences. However, clause 63, which the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-16, breaks that promise by saying that, if a judge considers the minimum sentence to be too harsh for a particular defendant, then the judge can disregard it and impose a lighter sentence. The Liberals want this new approach to apply to all or nearly all serious crimes in Canada, including aggravated sexual assault with the use of a firearm, human trafficking, shootings and weapons trafficking, just to name a few. Minimum sentences will not be required in any of those cases. Making minimum sentences optional for these crimes is really bad. Canadians are afraid, and rightly so. After a decade of Liberal government, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assault has increased by 76%, and violent crime has increased by 55%. These are not just statistics on a page; these are families. These are women, these are children, these are victims. These are communities like mine, in Montmorency—Charlevoix, where people get up in the morning, work hard, raise their children and expect the government to protect them. Meanwhile, what are the Liberals doing in response to rising violent crime across the country? They are introducing a bill that makes it easier for judges to hand down lighter sentences to people who commit serious crimes. Why are they doing all this? Do they want better incarceration statistics? Who are they doing this for? It is certainly not for victims and their families. Why are the Liberals always telling the House that criminals have rights, but never talking about victims' rights and what happens to them? It is an awful thing to behold. I am going to talk about what is actually happening in prisons right now. These are not theories. These are facts. Everything I am about to say is connected. Chapter one begins in 2019. With Bill C‑83, the Liberals ended the use of administrative segregation for the most violent inmates. Instead, these inmates, who are violent in prison, have comfortable living quarters and access to psychologists, nurses, even pet therapy and social support. How nice. All of this is funded by taxpayers. Chapter two begins in 2022. With Bill C‑5, the Liberals abolished minimum sentences for crimes involving firearms. Judges began imposing community service sentences on men and women who commit crimes involving illegal weapons, as well as gun smugglers and repeat offenders. One judge even wrote that he had to hold his nose after handing down the sentence he was obligated to impose. Now we are on chapter three. Bill C‑16 would basically make all remaining mandatory minimum sentences optional. At Donnacona, a prison located about 40 minutes from my riding, there have been four murders in less than a year. The wardens wrote to me. I speak to them regularly. They contact me. They say that there are illegal weapons coming in and that the number of violent criminals is going up. They talk about cleaning up blood and then having to go on with their day, pretending everything is normal. They tell me about the stress they are under every day. The correctional officers' union says that over 350 positions are vacant nationwide because officers are under so much stress at work these days that they are dropping like flies. Meanwhile, the administration wants to cut back on the number of officers on the job, but that decision would heap even more pressure on the remaining officers. That is what is going on. Violent criminals are violent on the streets but also behind bars. Criminals who are violent when they are free are also violent when they are incarcerated, yet the Liberals want to reduce these people's sentences. What message does that send? I was sent here to the House by the citizens of Montmorency—Charlevoix, but not to rubber-stamp bills on autopilot, nor to remain silent while the government strips away the tools that protect my constituents and the entire population of Quebec. The federal government should excel at a few things and stay out of matters that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Canadian laws are certainly something citizens should be able to trust, and our work here in Ottawa is important in that regard. We should focus on those matters, the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. The real danger to citizens, however, is not bound by ideology. When Parliament establishes a mandatory minimum sentence, it makes a promise. Elected representatives—people accountable to voters who are not appointed for life, people whom voters have chosen to send here—made a promise to defend them in Parliament. When section 63 of the bill allows a judge to circumvent that promise, it weakens not only politics, but our entire image and the public's trust in our institutions. The important thing to understand is that it is not my point of view that matters, but that of the people. Their opinion counts. Perhaps it is time for the Liberals to start listening to the people. I am going to tell Canadians exactly what happened in committee. We moved amendment 22. We said that, at the very least, the safety valve, the escape hatch from mandatory minimum sentences, should not apply to someone who already has a criminal record. We moved amendment 25. We said that sexual offences against children and serious drug trafficking offences should be completely excluded from the lightest sentences. Children deserve to be protected. In moving amendments 25.2 and 25.3, we said that aggravated sexual assault and extortion should also not be eligible for this safety valve. We also moved amendment 29, which had nothing to do with sentences. We just said that when an offender is convicted of intimate partner violence and released on parole, the victim should be automatically notified. Every one of our amendments was defeated. I will stop there. Families in Montmorency—Charlevoix are watching what is happening. Quebeckers and Canadians are watching too. The government cannot make Canada safer by making criminals more comfortable.

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my speech. When these people talk about rights and freedoms, they are talking about the rights and freedoms of criminals. What about the rights of victims? Where are they? Victims are afraid, and the crime rate is rising. What message is being sent? We are leaving another loophole to allow violent criminals to get off scot-free and to give judges the option not to impose minimum sentences. No, that is not what our country needs. We need a strong justice system that makes it clear to criminals what consequences they will face if they commit a crime. The system must not give them free rein by suggesting that, in the end, they might be able to spend the rest of their lives at home while victims are forced to live in fear. That is a terrible message.

Mr. Speaker, what an odd question. We are talking about victims' rights. We are talking about laws being loosened. The Liberals want to loosen our laws so criminals do not have to face justice. I cannot commit myself today and answer my colleague's question on behalf of the entire Conservative Party. His motion was tabled yesterday, and it will be analyzed. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is very strict and works very hard. We want to make sure that ethics is a central consideration in every decision. If there is work to be done and it is important that we do it, we will be there. Holding the Liberals accountable for their decisions is our daily bread and butter.

Mr. Speaker, in the year since I joined the House, I have had the privilege of working alongside all my colleagues and with the Conservative Party. It is clear that, over the past year, the Liberals have spent more time working behind the scenes to cobble together a majority than trying to come to an agreement with the opposition. Yet that was the mandate given to them by the people, who elected a minority government. The Liberals had a mandate to work with the opposition to ensure that legislation serving the interests of all Canadians moves forward. It was not about imposing their vision, but rather respecting our vision. Every member of Parliament is sent by their constituents to get the job done here. That is not what the Liberals wanted to do. They did not spend their time working hard here; instead, they worked behind the scenes to cobble together a majority and then finally show up here, puff out their chests and claim that they are the ones in charge. Today, we are paying the price. We are here until midnight because the Liberals are trying to pull something off. They are trying to pass bills that they were unable to work on when it was actually time to do so.